and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 156, the nays are 268. the amendment is not adopted.

the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in house report 112-539 by the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignated amendment. deloip amendment number 5 printed in house report 112-539 offered by mr. grijalva of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is in order. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 176, the nays are 247. the chair: on this vote the yeas are 177, the nays are 247, the amendment is not adopted.

the question is on the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly under the rule the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 2578 and pursuant to house resolution 688 i report the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 2578 and pursuant to house resolution 688 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on adoption of the amendment in the

nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the wild and scenic rivers act related to a segment of the lower merced river in california and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> in its current form i am. the clerk: mr. perlmutter of colorado moves to recommit the bill to the committee on natural

resources with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. at the end of the bill insert the following, title 15, reducing the risk of wildfire, protecting tribal sovereignty, make it in america. section 1501, reducing the risk of wildfire. the secretaries of agriculture and interior are authorized to enter into contracts or agreements with a state to permit the state, to treat insect-infected trees and remove hazardous fuels on federal land located in the state in order to reduce the risk of wildfire. priority shall be given to the protection of homes, schools and health care, nursing and assisted living facilities. section 1502, protecting tribal sovereignty. nothing in this act shall override tribal sovereignty including with respect to native american burial or other sacred sites.

section 1503, make it in america. the secretary of the interior shall ensure that all items offered for sale in any gift shop or visitors center located within a unit of the national park system are produced in the united states. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. the gentleman from colorado is recognized for five minutes. mr. perlmutter: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of this motion to recommit. it is the final amendment to the bill. it will not kill the bill and if adopted the house will vote on final passage in this series of votes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. house will come to order.

the house will come to order. the gentleman from colorado may continue. mr. perlmutter: thank you, mr. speaker. the amendment has three parts. they are short and direct. first involves wildfires and the ability of -- and the authority of the secretary of the interior and the secretary of agriculture to enter into contracts with the states to clear hazardous fuel, to prevent wildfires as well as treat insect-infested trees. and we'll get into that. second part is very clear, just says nothing in this act shall override tribal sovereignty, including with respect to native american burial or other sacred sites, speaks for itself. finally, it's about making sure that in the parks and in the gift shops, that the goods that

are sold there are made in america. so let's just begin with the wildfire piece. as smokey the bear says, only you can prevent forest fires. right now across the west and throughout america we have wildfires do thing our country -- dotting our country. 500,000 acres are burning. >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will come to order. the gentleman from colorado may continue. mr. perlmutter: thank you. 500,000 acres across our country are on fire right now. in alaska, arizona, california, nebraska, nevada, new mexico, north carolina, wyoming and in my home state of colorado. right now we're battling a very big wildfire just north of where i live called the high park fire. 60,000 acres are currently

burning. we have about 50% contained. through the efforts of 1,800 firefighters. some of the best federal firefighters we have as well as state and local firefighters who are doing a tremendous job in a situation where we have very dry conditions, record temperatures and a very eratic fire. now, what we can do and what is missing from this bill is any public policy concerning what to do with insect-infested forests and we've had a terrible infestation of what they call the pine beetle. and it makes tremendous fuel. and so what this bill does is it gives the authority to the agriculture department and the interior department to work with

the states to clear these infect-ravaged forests. we need to have that done to prevent forest fires in the future. it's as simple as that, it ought to be very easy for everyone to support that. . secondly, this amendment says specifically, the act shall not override tribal sovreignty. we have reached treaties with the various tribes. those things control not this particular bill, and we state that specifically. finally we address something that i think urks many of us in this chamber when we have a visitor center in our national parks which is selling goods made in other countries. it just seems wrong. we want to make things in america, manufacturing in america is key to this country's economic growth and prosperity. we have a saying, if we make it in america, we'll make it in america. so three, very simple, very direct amendments to this bill, which make the bill much better, address public policy that is not addressed in the bill, that

should have been addressed in the bill, especially the wildfire mitigation piece, something that you would have expected to be right in the heart of this thing after texas was ravaged by so many wildfires last year and we knew dry conditions existed in the west. i urge my colleagues, democrats and republicans, to support this commonsense amendment to mitigate and prevent forest fires, to make sure that tribal sovreignty is respected and we make things in america so we make it here in america. thank you, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise?

mr. hastings: i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: the house is not in order. the chair: the house will come to order. the gentleman from washington is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: i had the opportunity several times to come down here to debate motions to recommit and i preface every time i come down here with history repeats itself. mr. speaker, history is repeating itself one more time. why do i say that? probably the biggest issue that americans are concerned about is jobs. this is another effort that deals with american jobs, with regulation that slows down economic activity. what does the other side do? they try to put up another impediment to a bill that is straightforward and had transparency in committee and full date in committee and put together to debate on the floor. it is the same arguments that we have that frankly are meaningless. to the essence of what the gentleman's amendment does. this is redundant. it is in law right now. is this a political move on the

minority's part is that what it is? if the issue is trying to deal with fire fighting in the west, i would remind this body two weeks ago that we passed legislation to allow the forest service to fight forest fires. we have already done that. all i can say, mr. speaker, history repeats itself. let's vote down this motion to recommit and vote for the jobs bill and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it and the motion is not adopted. mr. perlmutter: request a record vote. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five minute votes on

passage of the bill if ordered and to pass h.r. 3928. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 188, the nays are 234. the motion is not adopted. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the bill is adopted. the gentleman from massachusetts. >> on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing

until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 232, the nays are 188. the bill is passed and without objection a motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from alaska, mr. young, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2938 as amended on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 307, h.r. 2938, a bill to prohibit certain gaming

activities on certain indian lands in arizona. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 343 and the nays are 78, two being recorded at present. the rules are suspended and the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 691, resolution providing for consideration of the bill, h.r. 4480, to provide for the development of a plan to increase oil and gas exploration, development and production under oil and gas

leases on federal lands under the jurisdiction of the secretary of agriculture, the secretary of energy, the secretary of the interior and the secretary of defense in response to a drawdown of petroleum reserves tr the strategic petroleum reserve. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> i have a previously noticed motion at the desk. the clerk: motion to instruct conferees on h.r. 4348 offered by mr. walz of minnesota. mr. walz moves that the managers on the part of the house at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two houses on the senate amendment to the bill h.r. 4348, be instructed to resolve all issues and file a conference report not later than june 22, 2012. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 7 of rule 2,

the gentleman from minnesota, mr. walz and the gentleman from tennessee, mr. duncan each will control 20 minutes. the gentleman is recognized. mr. walz: i thank the gentleman from tennessee for being here. he has been a good friend and gentleman on the committee. we are here today, mr. speaker, is the american people deserve better from us. we have a need in this country that is obvious to everyone. the infrastructure is crumbling. 70,000 deficient bridges and our highways in disrepair, being a member from minnesota, that hot august day when the i-35 bridge fell into the mississippi river is a stark testament of what we can do. >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will come to order. mr. walz: the transportation

committee by command of the constitution, if you will, has always been there to build the post roads. this nation has built canals, docks, dams and ports and spurred the industrial revolution and built interstate highway system that made the american economy the envy of the world. we possessed vision, will power and done it in a manner that incorporated bipartisan support and at the end of the day compromise. the last bill that passed, passed by a vote in 2005 of 412-8. in the senate, 91 to four. the previous bill, 287 to 86. 91, 372 to seven and in 1987, over the last 25 years, 350 to 73. we have the will. we simply need to exercise the

political willpower to move this piece of legislation. this motion to instruct is very simple. 100 days ago, the senate passed their version. it received 74 votes to 22. it is a bipartisan bill. now i will be the first to tell you the prerogative of the house to lead is sacred to us. we need to have a say in this and make sure that we have as the people's voice. the problem is we have been sitting in conference committee for 45 days with a deadlock and no end insight. this motion to instruct, it is a nonbinding sense of the house, but i would argue it's far more than that. this is the sense of the american public. they sent us here to do some basic work. they did not send us here to agree with each other on everything. but they did have that understanding that the glue that binds the nation together is

compromise. and there are a few things, very few things that historically have been bipartisan. the transportation bill has been one of those. so what this em-- i ask is, compromise to the point we can get something on the floor and finish the work by this friday and give us the opportunity to exercise the american will by having their representative discuss what needs to be there. if we can't come to a compromise, bring us the senate bill and let's have the up or down vote. if it passes, we can move forward. if it doesn't, we start and go from there. but i have to tell, we can't afford to kick this can down the road and i would say the crumbling road. chamber of commerce, failure to keep up with infrastructure needs in the u.s. costs the u.s. $2 trillion between 2008 and 2009. every year we do nothing, we spend over $1 billion on

eyedling tax. waste 1.9 billion of gallons of fuel yearly, 5% of our fuel needs. that's money going to foreign countries who hate us. they'll hate us for free. we can be more efficient and cannot waste american's hard-earned dollars and move our products to market faster. and we have that power. i said it this morning, the quote from daniel webster, how about we do something worthy to be remembered for. how about we come together and pass the bill that people say they did the people's work and compromised. it's not about getting what we want but what the american public needs. with that, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee. mr. duncan: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to claim time on the motion to instruct and i claim

time to consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. duncan: i appreciate the kind words of the the gentleman from minnesota and i'm very much committed to trying to produce and pass a good transportation bill in this congress. when the gentleman's party was in control of the house and the senate and the white house and a couple of years ago, they couldn't for various reasons pass the bill, and i certainly hope we can in this congress. for the past 3 1/2 years, about half the time when i have come to the floor, i have had some member on both sides come up to me and say, when are we going to pass the highway bill. and this is my 24th year in this body and i have been involved actively with all of those bills that the gentleman from minnesota mentioned, all of which passed by overwhelming margins and as he said, the last highway bill that was passed in 2005 passed with only eight

votes in opposition. i agree and i think all the people on our side of the aisle agree in principle with mr. walz's motion to instruct. we should focus our efforts on completing the conference report and delivering a bill to the president's desk before the surface transportation programs expire at the end of this month. unfortunately, up until this moment, the senate has not shown a sufficient willingness to address the house's top four priorities, streamlining product delivery, program consolidation, state funding flexibility and equitable funding formulas not based on past earmarks. when the average transportation project takes 15 years to complete, i cannot help but think there is something wrong with the current system. and as the gentleman from minnesota, when the will is there, these projects can be completed in record time, such as the i-35 bridge in minnesota

after it collapsed. bureaucratic red tape is the culprit and much more must be done to accelerate the process by which projects are approved. every other developed nation is doing similar type projects in a third or half the time that we are. and -- and it is ridiculous that we are wasting so much money dragging these projects out for so many years. we can accomplish the goal of accelerating the process without harming the environment, but the senate so far has shown more interest in cattering to radical environmentalists than building infrastructure projects. program consolidation is another important reform that the house is pushing for in this bill. the senate insists on including two new programs at the cost of $3 billion a year that would allow the administration to play politics with the funding that should go directly to the states. at a time when the highway trust fund is going broke, we should limit our transportation dollars

on consolidating programs and eliminating wasteful programs, not creating new ones. funding flexibility for the states is critical to allow the states to fund the most economically highway and bridge projects. the federal government should not mandate to the states on flour planting and transportation museums and other questionable projects. while state budgets are squeezed to the breaking point. states need to be given flexibility. some states need to spend more on bridge replacement. some states need to spend more on crumbling highways. some states have done more already on highway enhancements and don't need to spend as much in that area. states need to be given some flexibility. most states have a backlog of crumbling bridges and highways needing to be rehabilitated. why not focus their limited resources on the greatest needs

in their states. the needs vary from state to state. finally, mr. speaker, the funding formula for how highway funding is distributed is based on the number of earmarks that states received in the last re-authorization bill. funding formulas should be based on the most equitable factors that are part of the state's transportation system not which member of congress fared the best. i hope these reasonable issues can be resolved before the end of the week and i reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee reserves. who seeks time? the gentleman from minnesota. mr. walz: i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. . . mr. blumenauer: there's no one i have more respect for than my good friend from tennessee. i had a great time working with him on a variety of things when

i was on the transportation infrastructure committee. but with all due respect, i think the issue here is what we are going to do to rebuild and renew america. for the first time in history, our republican friends gave us a partisan transportation re-authorization. never before have we seen anything like this offered up. there wasn't even a hearing before the full committee before it was advanced. went right to work session. there was no effort to involve people on the other side of the aisle. we were given a piece of legislation that attacked transit, that scaled down funding, that was against the most popular programs, the ones that have the greatest local involvement, the enhancements. it was an environmental

catastrophe. it was so bad that my republican colleagues couldn't even bring their bill to the floor. they withdrew it. and so we had the ninth extension. we have been given a bill in the other body that as my good friend from minnesota pointed out received 74 votes. it will give us two complete construction cycles, it does in fact accelerate the environmental processes. there is a compromise, a bipartisan compromise on the previous contention area of enhancements. it is a reasonable way for us to go forward. mr. speaker, in contrast to this, we have a republican budget that will not even fund

the current obligations. it will cut out entirely the ability to move forward with any new federal partnerships for infrastructure. i think the motion to instruct is a modest step forward. i respectfully suggest that what we ought to do is not just approve the motion to instruct, we ought to approve the senate bill and get on with business. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. walz: with that i refresh reserve -- reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee. dun dwun at this time i yield -- mr. duncan: at this time i yield three minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. shuster, a leading member of our committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for three minutes. mr. shuster: thank you, mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for leading -- yielding. i rise in support of the motion to instruct. passing a transportation bill is about jobs, it's about keeping america competitive in the world , so i for one am urging a yes vote on this motion to instruct.

i believe it's critical to america that we pass a transportation bill. i'd like to correct a few facts that my good friend from oregon just put forward. the gentleman to my recollection has bond the ways and means committee for the past -- has been on the ways and means committee for the past couple of years, four years i believe it has been, so i don't know how privy he was to what we did in the house transportation committee to try to be inclusive to our democratic colleagues. to work with them. and we were -- we worked with them as openly, if not more openly than the chairman oberstar when he chaired the committee. we did have a full committee hearing on it. in fact, we had 18 hours of debate and as i recall when chairman oberstar chaired the committee we had zero hours of debate in the full committee because a bill from the democratic-controlled house didn't even make it to the full committee. so we worked hard and we talked with our colleagues.

unfortunately being bipartisan is not just one party saying that they can't work with another party, it takes two of us to tango. and we did it in the last bill. i wasn't happy with much of chairman oberstar's bill, but to move a bill forward we said, ok, we're with you, we move the bill. our democratic colleagues chose to make it a partisan fight by not getting together with us. but i applaud my friend from minnesota with this motion to instruct. we need to move forward. and what we've been negotiating in the senate, really five

provisions that are extremely important, eliminating duplication, where you have a state that's environmental review process is stronger than the federal review process. it should substitute for the federal review process. the number one example that have is california. california is far more strict, far stricter, on environmental reviews than the e.p.a. is. so, why don't we allow california to move forward without having to go through a nepa review at the federal level? hard deadlines, concurrent rather than consecutive reviews, with hard deadlines. week of been talking to the senate for the past couple of months about this. but they insist upon having safety valves. what does safety valves mean? it means an agency can go to the secretary of transportation and ask for a waiver and say they need more time. that's not going to help to streamline this process. we know what will happen. it will continue to prolong these review processes. funding thresholds for nepa review. if a project receives the minimum amount of federal funding it should not be subject to a federal nepa review. but should go through the same regulations that a state project -- of a state project and we've already moved on this. we sent a cousht offer to the senate -- counteroffer to the senate. that's what we've been doing in the house. categorical exclusions, can i have another minute?

mr. duncan: i yield the gentleman one more minute. mr. shuster: categorical exclusions in right of ways. if you're going to replace a bridge in the same footprint, we shouldn't have to go through these endless long environmental reviews. we should be able to build that quickly. and efficiently. and in fact my colleague from oregon who's the ranking member on the highway subcommittee has suggested that there is some common ground there. in fact, i quote him. he said, we're going to have -- it's had to do with putting street cars back in the streets. we're going to have fewer cars on the road. why should we spend a lot of time and money studying it? and i agree with him. and finally, when there's a disaster allowing a lot of these to eliminate or to reduce significantly these reviews they have to go through, just in the

case of i-35 that was mentioned earlier, to be able to build that bridge in a much more efficient, faster time to get it up and running. i support the gentleman's motion to instruct and i stand ready as a republican of the conference committee to put a bill forward that we can pass here and i would urge all my colleagues in the house to support this motion to instruct and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. walz: i thank the gentleman from pennsylvania, he's a good friend and colleague and an honest broker on things. i agree. we're getting into. this i agree with the gentleman on the cat glorically excluded -- categorically excluded provisions. do we want to get a bill forward? i think there's agreement here. i think we're in a clear cut case of, if the per fects gets in the way of the good -- perfect gets in the way of the good, the american public pays for. that i appreciate his desire to get a bill done. i think it's been obvious that he wants this transportation bill done so i thank the gentleman. with that i yield the time to the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for three minutes. mr. defazio: i thank the gentleman for yielding time.

since the founding of our nation there has been bipartisan agreement on the need for the federal government to play a strong role in interconnecting the states of our country. it was george washington who said the only binding cement and no otherwise to be affected but by opening such communications as will make it easier and cheaper for them to bring the product of their labor to our market and that's relevant today. i'll address that in a moment. the second quote, which is relevant to the dispute today, is, we're either united people under one head for federal purposes or we are 13 independent subentities, eternally counteracting each other. this is the need, the gentleman knows this photo well. there are more than 70,000 bridges that are structurally deficient in this country. there are others, another 70,000 or so that are functionally obsolete. or need substantial repair. 150,000 bridges. 40% of the payment on the

national highway system doesn't just need an overlay, it needs to be dug up. it needs underlayment and restructuring. and a $70 billion backlog on our transit systems. we are actually killing people because we aren't investing in our infrastructure. let alone losing the opportunity for millions of jobs and economic competitiveness and more fuel efficiency. people died right here in washington, d.c., on the metro because they're running cars that don't work anymore in the middle of trains surrounded by cars that are supposed to work and help the ones that don't work. people died here because this bridge collapsed. we need to make these investments. and with the made in america requirements in the transportation portions of our government, which are the strongest and we hope to make even stronger in this bill, working with the republican side of the aisle here, we could put millions to work, not just construction workers who certainly need the jobs, but

also small businesses that supply, fabcation firms, manufacturing firms, steal manufacturers and others -- steel manufacturers and others across the board would be put to work. here's the problem. the second thing that george washington talked about. saying that we're either united or we're going to be eternally counteracting one another. there are unfortunately a substantial number of republicans in their conference which have blocked movement on a bill because they don't believe, unlike george washington, that the federal government has a role to play in coordinating a national transportation system. they want to devolve to the states. they want to go back to the good old days before dwight david eisenhower brought us into the modern era with a national highway system. here's the good old days. that's the brand spanking new kansas turnpike.

oops, it ends in a field. that's the oklahoma state line. do you have one additional minute? mr. walz: i yield main to the gentleman. mr. defazio: that's the oklahoma state line. they promised to build their section but they couldn't because they had a funding dispute and they didn't. until the eisenhower bill passed and we had federal aid to help oklahoma build their section. now, we should go back to those good old days, but there are some 80-odd members of the republican conference who are opposing a well-funded, longer-term bill because this is their belief. these were better days for the united states of america. i tell you what, we can do a bill and we could do a bill that does accommodate some of the concerns on the republican side of the aisle with a serious conference on the next few days with a which will just to get it done, put america back to work and rebuild our infrastructure. and you're going to have to have, unfortunately, because of your devolutionists, some democratic votes to pass it. let's go back to the days of

denny hastert. a majority of the majority needs to vote for a bill. but it doesn't have to be passed only with republican votes. we're not going to ever get a bill done if it's done a partisan basis. i thank the gentleman. mr. walz: i reserve the balance of my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee. mr. duncan: mr. speaker, at this time i yield three minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. suggester left-hand side, a very active -- mr. southerland, a very active member of our committee. mr. southerland: i thank the gentleman from tennessee for yielding time. you know, as a new member of this body, it was quite aner to be appointed a conferee -- to be -- quite an honor to be appointed a conferee to go to conference. it's usually something that obviously senior members are appointed to. it was a great honor and it still is. even though we have yet to have a product that we can vote upon. you can imagine my disappointment when after

attending five working group meetings i did not have a single individual to look at on the other side of the table representing the other body. you see, when the american people sent us here, i believe they sent us here to change the way we do business. and i'm pleased that we were sent to be involved in those five meetings. you know, i keep hearing oftentimes in the media how, mr. speaker, that it is the republican side that perhaps aren't interested in a bill but i would say if that were true then why did i attend five working group meetings only to have no counterpart on the other side of the table? had -- we recognize not just words, we recognize actions and i think the american people are so tired of words and i think that they would be terribly disappointed if they knew that their elected members did not even attend meetings.

and if they did not attend these working group meetings then how could they be serious in expecting us to believe that they're interested in a bill? . i think we trample on their trust when we don't do the people's work. it is terribly disappointing. i want the reforms. they are important. if we build a bridge like i-35, we can rebuild it in 437 days. it makes sense to include streamlining provisions in this bill that say that every project around the country is just as important as i-35. therefore we need to build all bridges back to their original state. without having to go through long, expensive environmental impact studies if we are

rebuilding that bridge back or repaving that road back on the original footprint. that makes sense and the american people want us to do their work and create a bill that is valued and paid for. and what we have voted upon and the reforms we have asked to be considered, not only have they not been answered or even addressed, but we haven't had the opportunity to even look at one of our counterparts on the other side of the aisle at conference. it is disappointing. at that, i rise in support, in support of this motion to instruct, because i believe that we need to have members come and we need to dwt debate and do the people's business and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. walz: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. bishop: i thank my friend from minnesota for yielding. i rise in support of the motion to instruct conferees and i would like to make clear that this issue of categorical

exclusion is important for us to recognize. the i-35 rebuild was subject to a categorical exclusion so it was not held up. and i will repeat, 96% of the projects that go forward with highway bill funding are subject to a categorical exclusion. and we really have to ask ourselves if we are going to continue to allow unemployment in the construction industry at 35% for 4% of the projects that are constructioned under the -- constructed under the highway bill. this motion would allow the bill to be passed at the end of the week. this was passed in the senate, fully paid for and save or create an estimated three million jobs. in my state alone, 115,000 jobs will be saved or created if we can get either a successful

conference report or the passage of map 21. 126 days since the house rules committee began considering h.r. 7 for floor consideration, which faltered soon thereafter when my republican colleagues couldn't gain consensus and the bill died. 262 days since the house passed the shell bill to allow negotiations to begin. we are a mere six legislative days away from the expiration of our highway program when the current 90-day extension expires on june 30. one fact has been a constant, the men and women of our construction industry continue to suffer with one of the highest rates of unemployment for any industry. we continue to lack the certainty that a multi year highway bill would provide. it would allow safety and initiate projects and put people back to work and improvement to our roadways and transit

systems. can i have another minute? i applaud my senate colleagues who put aside partisan politics. the senate put forward that which they could agree on and set aside to a later date that which they could not agree. it was a sensible and successful strategy. with senate democrats, senate republicans, house democrats and the white house all supporting map 21, it is clear if we can get the house republicans on board, we can get a bill and that's what we need to do, we can get a bill because a temporary extension, yet another, is not a strategy that works. a temporary extension is not the answer. we will soon exhaust the trust fund. states and municipalities will not have the certainty they need to plan, thus construction companies will not be able to hire and we will lose yet another construction season. a temporary extension is not the answer. passing a conference report by june 30 or passing map 21 is the answer. i yield back the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from tennessee. mr. duncan: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lankford, who has been one of our lead negotiators on trying to come up with a transportation bill in our conference. three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. lankford: i thank my colleague from tennessee. it is interesting for me to hear the indignation in saying we've got to get the bill done and i have to say i completely agree with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. this is a very important bill. every person who gets in a vehicle, bus, truck or has any item in their home that is delivered by truck, train, whatever it may be, is all affected by this, so it is very important. just a quick history lesson, when i arrived here in january of last year, we were on extension number six, because the previous highway bill expired in 2009. and when democrats had the house and the senate and the

presidency and they loaded their bill with earmarks to get it passed, they did not get a bill passed. it's interesting to hear the conversation about well, if republicans in the house could get this resolved, we would get this settled, when in reality there are a lot of technical details that ought to be right when the democrats had the house, senate and presidency for two years could not get this bill done even with the earmarks. this is a different day. we are trying to work together between the house and the senate. one body doesn't have the bill and the other body says, you pass it, we'll do that. if so, i would love for the senate to take up many of the bills that we passed in the house and just have the senate go ahead and pass those. but this has to be a bicameral agreement. we aren't going to do this with earmarks. that is a big difference.

in the past, these bills had thousands upon thousands of earmarks and we have determined no more. we have to live within the budget and we have to be able to help a few things work a lot better than they have in the past. major highways take about 15 years in construction. we think that is way too long. the first seven years is in permitting and process this repetitive process with this linear permitting, we want to stack those permits up, allow people to take their first step on it and have the environmental reviews but do it faster and more streamlined. it saves time, money. it actually builds those roads a lot faster than waiting all of this time. many people in oklahoma stare at the engineering work on both sides of the road and hear about new construction that is happening but hear about it and hear about it and hear about it before the dirt gets turned. we want to get these road projects started and completed. we will allow road money to be used for roads. i know that's a crazy idea, but we would like highway money to be used for highways and stay

within budget and the states to have the flexibility to spend their money. it is their money, not washington's money. it is going back into that state, we want the individuals who actually paid that gas tax to be able to help resolve how it is going to be used. if they have bridges coming down, let's fix bridges. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. walz: i yield two minutes to my colleague, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. ms. jackson lee: i thank -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for -- how much time, sir? mr. walz: two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the speaker and i thank the manager and my friends on the other side of the aisle. this is an important, crucial

motion to instruct, crucial is the word. and i thank the gentleman for recognizing that while we are here, others are languishing, bridges are languishing, highways, ports. and even our mass transit concerns are languishing, because we have not moved forward. one, two, three, four, five, i think we are up to five extensions the last five to seven years. if my counting is correct. but most importantly, let me congratulate members from both sides of the aisle that have come forward to support the gentleman's motion to instruct, which evidences how crucial this motion is and how we need to move beyond the many, many conference calls that i know those conferees are getting from so many interest groups and indicate that we need to move forward and bring a report forward that will not stop us from continuing to negotiate on some of the many sidebar issues.

but as we languish, we are losing jobs. as we languish, americans are unemployed. as we languish, bridges continue to crumble. and i remember our good friend, chairman oberstar who taught us a few years ago, that if you pass a transportation and infrastructure bill, you put america back to work. tragically, as he was speaking some years ago, tragically, one of his own bridges in that area had a very devastating impact in the fracturing of that bridge. we don't want to see that anymore. we want to be able to see people going to work. and so i simply would ask that this motion to instruct is followed. bring to the floor in a conference report not later than june 22, 2012, the ability to pass -- can i get 30 seconds? mr. walz: 30 seconds.

the speaker pro tempore: additional 30 seconds, the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: bring to the floor this conference report. put to work people in texas. fix bridges and put to work people in minnesota, virginia, new york, across the nation, south, north, east and west and begin to solve separate difficult problems, if i might say, on the side. i want to see our workers working, many of our friends in the ibew and building trades and many other supporting unions, machineists and others working, i believe this is a bipartisan message. let's do it now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from tennessee. mr. duncan: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. cravaack. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. cravaack: i couldn't agree more than with my colleague from minnesota and i rise in support

of the motion to instruct. i stand ready to negotiate with the senate as a con fearey. i have par taken in some of these meetings myself and negotiated in good faith with senate staff, unfortunately, no senators. the highway trust fund is bankrupt and the federal highway program is in need of serious reform. congressman walz is quite correct in that we cannot continue to kick this can down the road and i believe the conferee's positions are fair and practical. in order to address specific transportation needs just makes sense. we have a $15.7 trillion debt. 46% of our debt is foreign-owned, 30% owned by one country, china. we do not have the luxury, as the senate bill requires, to spend money on things like wild flowers and at the same time, the trust fund is bankrupt. and as mr. walz and mr. defazio

points out, bridges are in disrepair and roads are crumbling. we need to get our priorities in order. the house bill will consolidate and eliminate programs as opposed to creating $3 billion a year in increasing new programs like the senate bill. this is not extreme, it's fiscally responsible. the 293 bipartisan house members voted to approve the keystone pipeline, a fair and practical approach in helping lowering gas prices at the pump and creating tens of thousands of jobs without hurting the environment. finally, the house positions of streamlining and significantly reducing the time it takes without harming the environment to build major road projects in this country is practical. 15 years to design and build is not. the senate steadfastly refuses to cut any bureaucratic red tape that is associated with building a highway or bridge.

we need to stop jobs being endlessly tied up. if the senate is as serious as we are, i hope they engage a good faith and bicameral fashion. i thank my colleague from minnesota for bringing this up. this is a very important position and i support his motion to instruct and i urge my colleagues to do so as well and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. walz: i thank the gentleman for his support. i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from illinois. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. . . ms. schakowsky: the republicans are doing nothing short of jeopardizing mms of jobs by refusing -- jeopardizing millions of jobs by refusing to fund the transportation bill like the bipartisan senate bill. 74 senators including 22

republicans voted in favor of s. 1813, map 21. and at one point the speaker of the house, john boehner, expressed his support for the bipartisan senate bill. it is time for us to pass that legislation. the unemployment rate in the construction industry remains nearly triple the national average. construction workers, engineers, architects, managers, contractors and developers tell me that another short-term extension will not bring enough certainty to the industry. in illinois, my state, the failure to pass a long-term transportation extension at the peak of the construction season has kept many unemployed and put thousands of other jobs at risk. our states, our localities, our business owners, our workers deserve bet -- deserve better. map 21 is the single largest jobs bill passed by either body in this 112th congress. in my home state of illinois alone, map 21 will save or

create 70,000 jobs, nationwide the bill will save or create nearly two million jobs. and spur one million additional jobs through the leveraging of transit funds. i'm a strong supporter of map 21 and we should send it to the president's desk this week. i can't support and our workers can't support another short-term extension that will leave thousands of illinois jobs hanging in the balance. we need to move forward with legislation that does more than kick the can down the road and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from tennessee. mr. duncan: mr. speaker, at this time i yield two minutes to the gentleman from indiana, dr. buechon, who has been a very lead negotiator on our conference committee for the republican side. two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for three minutes. two minutes. mr. bucshon: i'd like to thank mr. walz for bringing this to the floor. we must pass a long-term highway

bill. in my home state of indiana, interstate 69 is being constructed through my district, connecting my district to our state's capital. when i return home every weekend, i see how important federal dollars are to the construction industry and how necessary infrastructure is to the economic development of our cities and towns. as a member of the conference committee for the highway bill, i have personally been involved in this process. my house colleagues and i have attended several negotiation sessions and discussed this legislation at length with the senate staff. i wish our friends in the senate were as involved in the process because we could have resolved many of these issues weeks ago. i think my friends seem to forget that we don't just rubber stamp senate bills and they don't rubber stamp ours. if that were the case, they'd take up the 30 house-passed job-creating bills that we've sent over to them in the last year.

nobody is more committed to this legislation than members of the house on the republican side. we want to stream line the project delivery process, eliminate duplicative programs, give more power back to the states and stretch our limited dollars further. these are proposals that every member of this body should support. we need a long-term re-authorization that will provide certainty to our nation's job creators. i support this motion and i look forward to completion of this conference. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. walz: i thank the gentleman for his support and his work on this. at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to my friend friend and colleague from california, mr. garamendi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. garamendi: i want to thank the gentleman from minnesota for yielding time, for me to discuss this. during this approximately one hour of debate, it pays to listen to what has actually been said. what's been said by my republican colleagues is it's our way or no highway. we're going to have our way or

no highway. what is their way? what is it that the republicans are demanding? get past the nice rhetoric and look at the detail underlying the words. eliminate duplication. what does that mean? well, it basically means eliminating the environmental laws. oh, we don't need them, the states can take care of it. i think not. they want to focus on highways. well, we all do. but what does that mean? it means that they want to eliminate the public transportation portion of this legislation. ok, so no buses, no trains, no light rail funding. get into the details about what is actually being demanded by our republican colleagues and you begin to say, well, wait a minute. i think we can understand why there's not been progress here.

we need to really move forward. some 60,000 construction workers have lost their jobs in the last five months. as our republican colleagues have laid out their demands which they have essentially said are nonnegotiable. their way or no highway. they're holding this country hostage. they're holding the construction industry hostage. so that they can have their way. understand what their way means. no public transportation programs, oh, we'll repair bridges, we'll do highways and that's good. but there's more to it than this. no bike paths, no safety for work, for men and women that are walking along our choice. that's their way. -- our highways. that's their way. that's not what america's way

neededs to be. we need to pass -- needs to be. we need to pass a bill. we can no longer afford two million people -- afford -- two million people want to go to work. yes, they agree with mr. walz's proposal to get this thing done. but what theal they're really saying is -- but what they're really saying is get it done our way or there will be no highway. the senate has passed a bill. 74 democrats and republicans agreed to it. let's get it done. if you can get it your way in the next three days, fine. otherwise give us the senate bill and let's put men and women to work here in this country. we cannot afford any more layoffs in the construction industry. we can no longer afford to wait. a two-year bill is essential. i yield back. mr. walz: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. duncan: mr. speaker, i have no additional speakers on our side so i will close for our side by saying just a couple of things. one is the last highway bill that passed with only eight

dissenting votes that's been mentioned here a couple of times tonight was passed when republicans were in control of the congress. and so i think that shows very clearly that an overwhelming majority of republicans in the congress support highway bills and we want to do one this year. one of the main sticking points for us and one of the problems is that in my almost quarter century in this body we've been talking about and giving lip service to environmental streamlining all through those years. but we never really have accomplished anything. so you've heard it said several times tonight. federal highway administration says the average highway project, and these are not transcontinental roads, it takes 15 years to build them. when all these other developed nations are doing these projects in 1/3 or 1/2 the time we are. we have got to do more with less during this time of budgetary constraints. we want to do these things because these are jobs that can't be outsourced to foreign

countries. they are jobs that will be done here. they're important to this economy. the republicans believe that there's important and legitimate role for the federal government in transportation projects. people in california use the airports in texas and vice versa. people in sometimes drink the water in florida and vice versa. people in ohio sometimes drive on the highways in tennessee. and vice versa. all people benefit from lower prices when our ports operate efficiently. so, all of the things that we deal with in the transportation and infrastructure committee, republicans believe in them and they want to see a good, legitimate, but not dictatorial federal role in those projects. we believe that the role of the states is very important and we believe that the role of the local governments and the local people should be paramount because they know the needs of their states better than almost -- and their localities better than almost anyone.

but we are supportive of the gentleman from minnesota, we're supportive of his motion to instruct because it's our goal, it's the same as his. we want to produce a good, conservative, reasonable transportation bill for this nation and we want to do it sooner rather than later. we would like to do it within the next few days, but before we can do that, the other body does not control this process. they have to take into consideration what the house wants as well and that's what we're talking about. so with that we support the motion to instruct by the gentleman from minnesota and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota to close. mr. walz: thank you, mr. speaker. again i would like to thank the gentleman from tennessee, a leader on this. he has the institutional experience and knowledge and always gracious and i would have to say, you're going to find a lot of agreement from me on this. i certainly think that's the

case. the american public deserves better. i think they deserve a debate like they're seeing tonight. they see a sense of respect that goes back and forth and frustrations get high in this house. but i keep thinking back to that . the immeasurable sacrifices that went into self-governance. it would be a lot easier -- i had a government tell me, there's too many members of congress. we should cut the numbers in half. i said, why think so small? get rid of all of us and have a king and won't have to worry about this messy democracy. that's not what americans do. we understand there's good opinions here, differences, strong opinions for the right things about this country. but we disagree on how some of those things should get done. at the end of the day, those differences are a strength. if we can get the glue that holds us together as a nation in the compromise. and i'll be the first to say, i certainly don't want to see this house capitulate its responsibility but i also understand that at a time there are certain realities of what can move and what cannot and i think deadlines like this motion

to instruct puts in puts that deadline solid and it asks us to come. many of my provisions my colleague -- many of the provisions my colleagues were talking about, i'm personally supportive of that. but i understand a lot of my colleagues don't and there's no way the senate does. that the american people have elected us, they've elected the senate that doesn't agree with that so at the end of the davey to make a choice and all of us do. is it worth holding up a highway bill over a piece of legislation that i personally like but don't believe that it outpaces the point of getting these roads built? and so i think the public wants to see us do that. i certainly am willing to compromise as my friend from tennessee has always proven to me to try to get it right and i think the plibbling wants us to stand by our principles of trying to get it there. at the end of the day something has to be done. something has to be to move forward. the country depends on a workable infrastructure and i can't tell you in watching this happen, of seeing how important moving those products when the

i-35-w bridge was in the river, not just terms of the loss of life, the tragedy that happened there, but the disruptions that happened also that sprung out and rippled out into the economy. and i think all of us understand that tragic incident, we don't want to see it recommend cated and we also know the smart investments prevent it from happening. so, mr. speaker, i am appreciative of the members who came and spoke passionately tonight. i'm appreciative of the fokets who understand that this deliberative body has to come to some type of resolution. i would urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct, simply asking us, do the work we were sent here to do, get it done on time and get america working and moving again. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: all time having expired, without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question occurs on the motion to instruct. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it.

mr. walz: mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 further proceedings on this question are postponed. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. miller of florida for today, june 18, and for the balance of the week. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minutes. >> i ask the house permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. walz: when we come together and know that the good of the american public, their will, if it has worked in this house as it has for 236 years as we begin to deliberate and try to move forward on what helps the american public, bringing in our differences, debating and passionately debating what we feel. at the end, understanding the ultimate goal strengthens and moves this country forward and seeing an agreement on a bipartisan motion to instruct, just asking us, let's do the public's work. get a transportation bill done. put people back to work.

build our highways, bridges, and infrastructure necessary and move goods to compete in the 21st century. we can do it in a safe, efficient, modern manner and pay for it in a responsible way. the american public is willing to invest in america and asking us to do it smartlynd do it in a way that compromises for the good of all. i'm incredibly proud of this deliberative body and we have the ability to move it forward and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. cicilline: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. our most pressing legislative items were no where to be seen on the house floor today. we had the opportunity to make headway on critical legislation but republicans have not provided action or solutions, only obstruction and delay. student loan interest rates will double on july 1 if congress does nothing. losing construction jobs,

congress still hasn't passed the highway bill. the leadership in the house refuses to bring the bipartisan senate transportation bill to the floor for a vote, even it will support one million construction jobs right away, including 8,000 in the state of rhode island. our students and manufacturers and small businesses deserve greater certainty to better plan their lives and companies, grow jobs and strengthen our economy. another day has passed without addressing expiring tax provisions or prevent the rise in higher education. republicans are wasting time this week with little or know hope of passing the senate and veto threats issued by the administration. we cannot let this become another wasted week. our constituents deserve more. this congress has to take action now, not delay until it's too late. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, thank you very much for this opportunity. we have been engaged in this last hour in a discussion about what to do with one of the most

important parts of america's public agenda, which is the prppings -- transportation systems of this nation. and we have heard a lot of back and forth and heard that there was some agreement that we ought to get on with it. indeed, we ought to get on with it and ought to get a transportation bill before the american bill and ought to get it to the president. unfortunately, there is a gridlock and deadlock behind all of the gentle rhetoric of the floor this evening. there are profound differences in how we move forward with the transportation bill. we'll discuss some of those as we journey through this one hour or some portion of this one hour. i think i would like to start maybe more than 200 years ago. there is a lot of discussion we often hear on the floor and across the nation that the founding fathers would do it this way and that way and if we

only listened to the founding fathers, most of our problems would be resolved. usually those discussions really speak to not doing something. turns out that the founding fathers really did have a great deal of wisdom. i came across a book written by mr. tom hartman called "the american dream." and in it, in the very first chapter, he goes back to the founding fathers and talks about what george washington and george washington's secretary of treasury actually did. on the day he was inaugurated, mr. washington said, he did not want to wear a suit made in england, he wanted to wear something made in america. well, the make it in america is one of the principal things that my colleagues on the democratic side have been talking about for some time. when i came upon this book, i

said this is interesting, george washington instructed his secretary of treasury, alexander hamilton to develop a manufacturing program for the united states. and alexander hamilton did that. he didn't do it in 2,000 000 pages or 3,000 pages and developed an 11-point plan for america's manufacturers. turns out that many of those 11 points is what we have been proposing on the democratic side for our make it in america agenda. i wanted to pick up one of those 11 points and happens to be the 11th of the 11 points that alexander hamilton presented to george washington in 1790, 1790. and it was on american manufacturers. so, point number 11,

facilitating of the transportation of commodities. the language is rather old english, but still speaks to the following. improvements favoring this objective intim mately concern all domestic interest of a community, but they may without impropriety may have an important relationship to manufacturers. there is perhaps scarcely anything which has been calculated to assist the manufacturers of great britain than the public roads of that kingdom and the great progress which has been of late made in opening canals. of the former, the united states stands much in need. he goes on to talk about the necessity for transportation here in copying in what had gone

and that is ritain the development of public roads. then he says, the following marks are sufficiently jew dishous and perpt to deserve a literal quotation and in quotation, good roads, canals and navigable rivers by diminishing the expense of carriage, put the remote parts of a country more nearly upon the level with those in the neighborhood of a town. they are upon that account, the greatest of all improvements. so, here we are in mr. hartman's book "the american dream" talking about what the founding fathers wanted to do in 1790. i would also point out that by 1792, nearly all of those 11 points had become law and laid the foundation for the great american industrial revolution. so, back to infrastructure. the word we use today. we use infrastructure when we talk about our highways, our

canals, our roads and our transportation systems. there were, in fact, some public transportation systems at that time. now, speaking specifically of roads and jobs. we often talk about jobs here. we need to understand that today, if we were to pass the senate version of the highway transportation or the public transportation bill, we would put two million unemployed construction workers back to work this year. this year. two million would go back to work if we were to take up the senate bill. now, unfortunately, we have been in a gridlock and there's been no effort to compromise. my colleagues on the republican side are demanding fundamental

changes in the transportation systems and the way in which we apportion that money. those changes have not been acceptable to the senate, and indeed, those changes were not acceptable to even their own caucus, the republican caucus was unable to reach agreement -- they have more than enough votes to pass a bill out of this house, but they could not reach agreement among themselves, let alone with the senate. and yet, they are demanding that the senate take up what they could not agree to. on our side, we have said let's go with the senate bill. 74 senators, both democrats and republicans voted for it, leaving some 26 that chose not to support it. so two million, two million americans are waiting for action by the house of representatives and the senate. two million americans want to go to work, and yet we have this deadlock. we just found some support

amongst ourselves to tell the conferees get it done by the end of this week or take up the senate bill. listening carefully what we heard on the floor not more than an hour ago, compromise is not going to be found. keystone pipeline, no public transportation funding, eliminate the environmental protections that have been in place for more than 40 years, streamline, meaning eliminate programs. so compromise is not there. what has happened over the last several months? well, while our republican colleagues have been trying to get their own act together, here's what's happened to employment in the construction industry. way back in january, some 5,570,000 americans were working

in the highway construction and public transportation sector. in may, that number had fallen to 5,510,000, some 60,000 americans lost their job while the republicans were trying to figure out how they could come to an agreement with themselves on a transportation bill. they couldn't. 60,000 americans. 60,000 families lost their ability to earn a living as the majority in this house failed to even agree amongst themselves on what to do. the senate moved forward with a bill. it's been there nearly two months before this house available. a conference committee was formed and gridlock continues. 60,000 families are without an

income as a result of the gridlock and the inability of our colleagues to come to an agreement. it's time for us to move on. it's time for us to put a two-year bill in place, as the senate has proposed, one that would put two million americans back to work immediately. states would move forward. and they would know over the next two years, there would be funding from the federal government. right now, the word from my friends on the other side of the aisle is, well, we're going to go with the 60-day extension. states cannot work with that. they won't know what will be available at the end of the 60 days. they don't know what is available today because we are up against a deadline. it is time for us to move with the senate bill. it's time to end this continuing decline. this is may. if we were to take the june figures, which are now being unfortunately coming forward,

more and more construction workers have lost their jobs. they are in my district. my contractors are saying, there is no further contract available to us. we won't be able to put our people to work. we don't have a contract. the states can't offer new contracts. so it won't just be 60,000. at the end of june, it will probably be 70,000, 75,000 or perhaps even more that have lost their job as this gridlock continues here in the house of representatives. we can do better. we can do better. how important is this to the economy this it's very important to the economy. not just for construction workers, not just their families, the two million that could go to work if we accepted the senate bill -- and it's a good bill.

it provides adequate funding for transportation, for repairing the bridges that we heard so much discussion of, for paving the roads that we heard so much discussion of less than an hour ago. providing the money for the public transportation sector so that the buses, the trains, the planes can continue to operate. it's a good bill. not perfect, not as large as many would want. doesn't have the keystone pipeline in it. doesn't aadvice rate the environmental protections necessary as we build these projects. so what would happen if we were to accept the senate bill, end the gridlock, put two million americans back to work, end the decline. for every dollar that we invest in infrastructure, that's the highway bill, and the transportation bill, a doll --

$1.57 is pumped into the american economy. that comes from mark zandi, chief economist from moody's. spend a dollar on transportation and you increase the g.d.p., you increase the economic activity of this nation by $1.57. so there's more than just transportation at stake here. what's at stake here as we see, the continuing decline of the transportation and construction sector as a result of the gridlock that has been with us nearly this entire year. what's at stake is the growth of the american economy. it's the grocery store that will have a customer coming in, not spending an unemployment check, but rather spending a check that's given to them by the

contractor and that money circulates in the economy. so that the hair dresser, the barber maybe even the gun shop owner will see their business increase. . for every dollar that's spent $1.57 is generated in the economy, putting other people to work beyond the construction industry. there's more to it than that. one of the provisions that we would like to see in the bill which actually is in the senate bill is a tightening of the waivers that have been so injuryous to the mesh economy. -- american economy. the waivers have been overused in the last two decades. waivers that push aside the buy it in america provisions that we presently have in the law, push those aside and say, we don't care whether that money is spent on american-made equipment. we don't care whether that money is spent on jobs in america,

just pushing aside the buy america provisions. the senate bill has a very important provision that will create even more jobs in america because it tightens up, tightens up the waiver provisions. and says to the department of transportation, no, you cannot just willy nilly provide a waiver. you must adhere to the law that says, buy america. 60% minimum american couldn't tent in the steel in the -- content in the steel in the bridge that's going to be repaired. minimum 60% content on the buses and the trains that are going to be paid for with your tax dollars.

what that means is make it in america. that provision that is in the senate bill will enhance american manufacturing by limiting the waivers that have been so numerous over the last two decades. as to hollow out the american manufacturing sector. manufacturing matters. this is the american middle class. the construction industry and the manufacturing industry is the heart and the soul and the foundation of america's middle class. and so in the senate bill it tightens up the waiver provisions. and says that americans will have the jobs. not some foreign employee of a company that has gained the contract. i want to give you a specific example. in california the largest public works project ever is the

reconstruction and the rebuilding of the san francisco oakland bay bridge. a new bridge. billions of dollars. the steel in that bridge was made in china. 6,000 jobs in china, no jobs in america. said to be 10% cheaper. turned out that at the outset the chinese steel manufacturers could not produce the steel. but they got the contract and what they did was to figure out how to produce the steel. they built a new steel mill. 6,000 jobs. in america, no. in china, yes. turned out that the steel was not 10% cheaper, it was shoddy. the welds were not adequate. they had to go back. delays occurred. turned out to be even more expensive. had that occurred in america those -- that new steel mill would have been built in america.

and it would be there for the next contract, the next bridge to be built in america or around the world. but oh, no. we're going to save 10%. we lost american jobs. if the senate bill were to come to this floor and become law, the waiver that was allowed and given to the state of california , a waiver that allowed the chinese steel company to have the contract would not have been allowed. 6,000 jobs would have been in america. and we would once again make it in america and americans would make it. but oh, no. it didn't happen. manufacturing matters. i'd like to see another provision in the bill but i won't demand this. and my democratic colleagues who support this are not going to demand it. because we want to get on with providing those two million jobs for american workers in the construction industry. but let me take a moment to

explain what it is. this is a bill that i introduced at the beginning of this year's -- beginning of last year. it's h.r. 613. what it says is that our tax money, the money that is being spent by every american when they buy a gallon of gasoline or a gallon of diesel, that that money goes into the highway trust fund and 613 says it must be spent on american-made equipment. highways. this is the steel that's on the bridges. this is the rebar that's in the roads. this is the concrete, the asphalt, american-made. if we want to build a high speed rail as we do in california, then that high speed rail is going to be financed with your tax dollars and it will be

american-made high speed rail train. you want a train? you want to improve your transit system? it will be american-made. is it possible, does this work? let me give you an example. in the american recovery act, sometimes known as the stimulus bill, there is a provision for amtrak trains. upgrade the amtrak system. i think it was a little over $12 billion. some wise staffer wrote next to that $1 billion a sentence that said, this money must be spent on american-made equipment. 100%. -- 100% american-made equipment. oh, you can't do that. well, it turns out that you can do that. a german company, one of the largest industrial companies in the world, looked at it and said, $12 billion? hm. we can build it in america. and they did.

they built a manufacturing plant in sacramento, california, and they are producing 100% american-made locomotives. because the law said that it must be done. h.r. 613 says precisely that. if you want to spend -- if you want the tax money, then it must be american-made equipment. use our tax dollars to create american-made jobs. not steel made in china, not trains made in germany, not locomotives from japan. it's our tax money, it will be spent on american-made equipment. that's what this does. and we have the proof that it can be done. it's being done today in sacramento, california, by a german company that built a manufacturing plant to take

advantage of money that was available if the product was made in america. another sad example. the bay area rapid transit system, bart, needs to replace its 40-year-old trains. $3.2 billion. the minimum in the law today is 60%. the bids went out, two bidders were in the finals. one, a french company. another, a canadian company. the canadian company's bid was 2% or 3% lower than the french company. however there was a significant difference. the canadian company said, we will build 66% american content. the french company said, we can do better. a little bit higher price, we can do better, we will build 95%

american content. the difference, $1 billion of american jobs. 66%, 95%. 2%, 3% difference in price. the bart board of directors refused to go back to a second bidding process that would have taken 60 or 90 days. they said they'd cut their price. we want these jobs in america. turns out most of them would be in new york, not california. we want these jobs in america go back to another round of bidding and we'll get out a sharp pencil and we'll cup down. the ba -- come down. the bart board of directors let that opportunity for $1 billion of jobs to go by. many of us believe that they would have matched or even outperformed the canadian bid or

maybe the canadians would have come back and gone to 95%. we'll never know. what we do know is that $1 billion of american jobs were lost. so now as we continue to debate and dally and let time go by, as american jobs, as american workers -- as american workers in the construction industry see the continued decline month by month in the number of men and women that are employed as layoffs continue, between january and may more than 60,000 construction workers in the united states have lost their jobs while we continue to fight over issues here. but the fundamental issue is the issue of jobs. you can talk about the keystone pipeline and there are jobs there and maybe someday that pipeline will be built. you can talk about the

environmental processes that have protected the environment of this nation for the last 40 years and maybe there ought to be some adjustments there. you can talk about giving states the power which basically mean there is no money set aside for public transportation. we talk about those things. but as we wrestle back and forth for what one or another of us think is so critically important , every day another construction worker has lost their job. another family has lost their opportunity to make the payment on their home. another community has seen the economy in their area diminish. we have a reasonably good bill available to us, we can vote on it tomorrow. that's the senate bill. protects american jobs. protects the public transportation system. it's fully funded. not with some hypothetical money that may come in some day, but rather real dollars.

it says that our tax dollars must be spent on american-made equipment, on american jobs. it's a good bill. we had a motion to instruct here on the floor just a few moments ago and as you listened to the debate you'd think there was agreement and there is agreement. we got to get this job done. we got to put americans back to work. two million americans await our decision. are we going to continue to fight for some perceived issue that is important? -- important to a small group of people? are we going to look at the larger picture here? the picture of american workers, of american jobs. i suppose tomorrow we'll take up

that motion to instruct and we'll see. if by the end of this week we're willing to compromise, are we willing to put americans back to work, two million americans? or are we going to hold fast to perhaps a funding scheme that's been proposed and can't even be agreed to by the members of the republican caucus? or an elimination of certain categories of funding like public transportation which couldn't even be agreed to by the republican caucus, let alone he democrats. it's time to look at the bigger

picture. it's time to look at the construction worker in our community, the ones we represent, and say, i want you to go back owork. we'll fight this out another day. the most fundamental, most important issue confronting this american economy and each and every individual in america is where are the jobs? where is my job? how can i support my family? it's time to put the bickering aside. it's time to accept the fact that americans want to go to work and two million americans are out there looking for their opportunity and their opportunity rests with us. rests with the house of representatives. the senate has done its work. it's put a two-year, fully-funded transportation bill that meets the needs of this nation for the next two years. they passed it up. this house has not passed a transportation bill. we put a stopgap thing out to go to conference but it wasn't a transportation bill.

it didn't do the job. maybe wednesday, thursday, maybe sometime friday, there can be an agreement between the two houses. but if there is not an agreement, then as i heard not more than an hour ago from my republican colleagues, in agreeing to the motion to instruct that if there is no agreement then take up the senate bill. that was in fact the motion. take up the senate bill if there is no agreement. put two million americans back to work. repair our highways, repair our

bridges, buy american. enhance the buy american provisions. we've got work to do. memps have work to to. americans want to work. it's time for this house to work. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. black, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mrs. black: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today with many of my freshmen colleagues to talk about the impact of a very important bill, the patient affordable act, commonly called obamacare on our economy, our care givers, and most importantly, the american people seeking care. any day now, the supreme court is expected to announce its

decision on obamacare. while i hope that the supreme court rules on the side of the constitution and the american people, no matter what happens, the fact remains, this law is bad policy. it's bad for health care, it's bad for the economy, and it's bad for the future of our country. the rhetoric of bold promises used to pass obamacare into law simply cannot be reconciled with reality. the more the law is implemented, the more the american people don't want it. the president's promises on quality of care, lower insurance premiums, no increase in tax -- in taxes and no effect on the deficit, in just three years, have been broken time and time again. broken promise number one. president obama said in march of 2010, and i quote, if you like your doctor, you're going to be able to keep your doctor. if you like your plan, you can

keep your plan. the reality is, president obama's very own administration now estimates that the new regulation contained in obamacare will force up to 80% of the small businesses that gave up their current -- to give up their current plans by 2013. the congressional budget office also estimates that between three million and five million people will be dropped from their employer-based coverage by the time the law is fully implemented. when i visited businesses in my district, i also ask, have you done the math? will you keep your insurance or pay the fine? time and time again, i get the same answer. we'd like to keep insuring our employees but it doesn't make good business sense to do so. yesterday new york fact, i participated in a field hearing in murfreesboro, tennessee, on the economy. ewe heard from several business

owners and state leaders. a gentleman named h. grady payne who is president of a plant in fayetteville discussed the impact on his business. his company has 450 employees and he struggles each year to encourage them to participate in health insurance. the company has had to create different employee groups in order to create an employee base which would have 75% participation as required by most insurance companies. now payne said the nondiscrimination provisions of the health care reform would prohibit this. forcing the company several expensive options. it could switch from full insurance to self-insurance, it could expand the coverage to all employees and have the employee costs set according to the affordability formula, or it could stop offering health care insurance altogether, instead paying the penalty of $2,000 for each employee.

payne said any of these three options, any of these three option, would cost the company more than $1 million compared to the current costs. i'll talk about other broken promises, but i would like to yield five minutes to my good friend todd young from indiana, representing the ninth district of beautiful bloomington. i yield him five minutes. mr. young: i thank the gentlelady, my hardworking colleague from tennessee, who is also a health care professional and quite converse ant in these issues and -- conversant in these issues. i come from indiana with internationally renowned medical device manufacturers, renowned ones or small ones. indiana, in fact is a global leader in the medical device

industry. scores of successful medical device businesses are headquartered in the hoosier state and they provide nearly 20,000 hardworking hoosiers with good-paying jobs. now these jobs, by the way, provide wages that are over 40% higher than the state average. these are exactly the sorts of businesses we need to expand and grow right here in america if we want to create a healthy economy. i bring this up because the president's health care law, what most americans now know as obamacare would shrink the number of jobs in the medical device industry. this is because the law contains a 2.3% industry-specific excise tax that will crip they will sale of medical devices. it would cripple the entire sector and hurt american jobs. back in october, a bipartisan group of us from indiana held a fuel hearing in indianapolis to discuss this very issue with industry leaders. the are spons from business

leaders -- the response from business leaders was unanimous. it would be harmful to manufacturers throughout the industry. many admitted they would have to move jobs to europe. now when is the last time we heard it was cheaper to move american jobs -- jobs to europe? for the sake of keeping high-paying, advanced manufacturing jobs here in the united states, this tax must be repeal. the medical device excise tax is so harmful to the american economy that the house voted to repeal this narrow part of obamacare. it's one of a strong -- in a string of votes to repeal this law. there's a better way to avoid increasing health care costs than imposing adecisional taxes on the people. i say let's start over. if the supreme court doesn't to our work for us, let's repeal the affordable care act and pass bipartisan legislation that would bring down the cost of health care with this whole

-- what this whole exercise was supposed to be about in the beginning. our constituents deserve noless. they expect us to engage in this effort. i'm exited -- committed to it. i know my republican colleagues on -- in the house are committed to it as well. i yield back. mr. -- mrs. black: thank you, mr. speaker young. i appreciate his comments about starting over. we do feel that's the direction we need to go. we've had over two dozen votes on repealing and replacing this very onerous bill that's affected our businesses as has just been said. now i'd like to yield five minutes to our class president, austin scott, who represents the sixth congressional district in fwea and represents warner robbins. i yield five minutes to my colleague from georgia. mr. scott: my father, as you is a health care professional, an orthopedic surgeon who came out of med school when i was just a

child. i spent a lot of time in a physician's office and a not-for-profit hospital watching my dad take care of patients and helping them. that doctor-patient relationship is something that's been stripped away in this bill. i want to talk about the numbers, not just the relationships right now. i think it's important to reflect on what happened 833 days ago when then-speaker nancy pelosi told the american public that congress must pass the bill so they could find out what was in it. now i have no doubt that the president in his endorsement of the bill, surely he read it and knew what was in it. the speaker of the house of representatives, it would have been irresponsible for her to endorse a bill without knowing what was in it. and they had to understand that it would negatively impact our economy and the gentleman who was just in the well talking about americans wanting to go back to work. he's right. the republicans in this house have passed a tremendous number of jobs bills to help put americans back to work, help reduce the cost of petroleum in

this country, yet they sit over in the senate, idle, along with a bill that would repeal this national health care law that has kept us in a recession. now, they forged ahead with this legislation instead of working on the economic issues so many americans needed them to work on and quite honestly despite the protests of the american public. they thumbed their nose at the american citizens. that's why en-- that's why, when it came time to duo to the polls, 87 new freshman republicans came to washington. districts where the president had gotten almost 60% of the vote, those people, those americans, who understood that their rights had been stripped from them, absolutely rejected the president's health care bill. now 822 days since the democratic controlled house passed the president's health care bill and i would remind you, it was just a few days before that, to get the number of votes to pass it, he met with pro-life democrats to say

abortions would not be funded in the bill. we know that's nots inly true. we know where the mandate has come out, he said it doesn't care if it vimet theirs faith or religious principles, they're going to do what he says, not what their faith tells them to do. certainly a direct violation of people's constitutional rights. now, 820 kays since the president signed it into law. there's been no recovery and there could have been. there's no ifs, and, or buts about it. more merps would be at work today right now if that bill had not been passed and the sooner it's untone, the sooner americans will be able to get back to work. 9 tais since the supreme court began hearing oral arguments about the constitutionality of the law. 89 days. now, mr. speaker, the american people began feeling the

negative impact of this bill, quite honestly, as soon as it was passed on day one. unfortunately, they'll continue to feel the impact of this legislation until congress fully repeals and replaces it. some more numbers for you. in the past year, the average cost of health care for act -- 1 -- ctive worker rose to $ rose by $800 a month. there was a 62% increase for dependent coverage. yes, all of this, all of this, because of the increasing cost in the mandates in the health care bill. 81% of companies said the health care law had increased administrative burdens on their human resources department and they are not, in many cases, hiring people because the unknown cost of the legislation. one in six firms said the cost of complying with the law is one of their top challenges in maintaining affordable coverage. mr. speaker, while it's my firm hope that the supreme court will find this law unconstitutional, which i

believe it is, we must continue the effort to repeal and replace this bill. we can't wait for the november election, mr. speaker. the american people need this bill repealed right now. madam, i yield the remainder of my time back to you. mrs. black: thank you, mr. speaker scot, for coming here and -- mr. scott, for coming here and talking about our economy. let's talk about broken promise number two and the burden it is on our seniors. proponents of obamacare claimed it would protect medicare. that couldn't be further from the truth. the health care law cuts more than $500 billion from medicare. and it threatens the choice seniors currently have. and thanks to obamacare medicare advantage enrollment will be cut in half by 2017. the only thing this law does for medicare is ensures bankruptcy

in eight years. now, instead of structurally reforming medicare and building on what is working with medicare advantage, obamacare further weakens medicare's fiscal state and punts the difficult health care decisions to unelected bureaucrats. this is clearly not the way to preserve care for our current or future retirees. real sustainable reforms must be made for those under 55 in order to keep our promises to current seniors. this law hurts seniors today and it stands in the way of protecting this program for our future children and grandchildren. and now i'd like to yield five minutes to a friend of mine from las vegas, nevada, representative joe heck, representing nevada's third district, who is a physician and a health care provider. i yield five minutes. mr. heck: thank you. i thank my colleague from tennessee and my fellow health care practitioner for heading up

this most important discussion this evening. mr. speaker, i come to the floor today to talk about something that a majority of americans actually already know. the health care overhaul that was forced through congress on a party line vote in the dead of night with special interest provisions like the cornhusker kickback and the louisiana purchase is a bad piece of legislation that should be repealed. in fact, a recent new york "times" poll showed that 68% -- "new york times" poll showed that 68% of respondents want to see the law partially or fully repealed. it's no surprise that the american people are frustrated and want to scrap this law and start over. the law has failed to deliver on all of its major propositions. we were told that the law would reduce costs, reduce the deficit, create jobs and allow people who like their insurance plan to stay on it. we now know that it has fallen far short of these goals as we continue to read stories and studies outlining just how harmful this law will be for parents -- patients and for the

economy. we know that this law will not reduce the deficit. in march the nonpartisan congressional budget office released a report in which they projected the cost of the health care overhaul out to the year 2022. they found that the bill will cost $1.7 trillion between now and then. that is twice as much as the bill was originally intended to cost. and this of course would be added to a national debt of over $15 trillion. we know this law will hurt access to care for patients, especially our seniors. in addition to gimmick accounting that essentially cuts $500 billion from medicare and disproportionately affecting medicare advantage beneficiaries, it established the independent payment advicery board. this board of unelected washington bureaucrats this medicare i.r.s., will be hand picked by the administration to cut funding for medicare. make no mistake about it, the bill is very clear about the aim of this board and i quote, it is the purpose of this section to,

in accordance with the following provisions of this section, reduce the per capita rate of growth in medicare spending, end quote. the board will be unaccountable to the american people, it will be unaccountable to the congress and it will even be unaccountable to the president and will stand between seniors and the services they receive for medicare. as a doctor i fear that when forced to reduce medicare costs, the actions of this board will have serious implications for access to care for seniors. that is not what my constituents and the people of nevada want in a health care system. we know that this law is

contained in the health care overhaul, one of many such taxes contained therein, that would have imposed 2.3% tax on medical device manufacturers and was projected to increase taxes by 28.5 -- $28.5 million over the next 10 years. this tax would result in higher costs for medical device manufacturers and would be passed on to patients in the form of more expensive medical bills. increased costs for doctor and hospital visits will widen, widen the access to care gap even as individuals and families are struggling to keep pace with the current skyrocketing health care costs. in my home state of nevada, this increased tax on device manufacturers would put over 1,000 jobs at risk. we know that this law will cost people -- cause people to be dropped from plans they like. i have heard from concerned small businesses in my own district lie imagine communications, a marketing firm, that employees 11 people when they started out they paid 100% of their employees' insurance premiums because they saw it as way to attract and retain quality employees. but due to skyrocketing costs, they have been forced to cut back to only providing 50% of premiums and they hope they can been to do just that. but the way things are going, they aren't sure how much longer they will be able to be sustainable. they are looking at having to drop employees from coverage

because of the increased cost of providing insurance. as we stand here today, we await a landmark ruling from the highest court in the country on whether key components of the law or even -- are even constitutional. the individual mandate, the provision that forces every american to buy insurance or pay a fine, a tax, is the wrong approach to take on health care reform. instead of penalizing nonaction, we should be incentivizing people to take -- vent -- intent strizzing team to -- vent size -- intent advising people to make their own health care decisions. instead of injecting more government into our health care system, our focus should be on patients, especially our seniors, who rely on access to call the health care. our system is working for most americans. almost 85% have health insurance. and it can work for all americans through commonsense reforms like moving coverage

towards an individual based model, increasing competition by allowing the purchase of insurance across state lines. intent advising the purchase of -- constituent advising the purchase of insurance and letting people, not government, decide what services they need and want. second chances don't come along very often, mr. speaker. but we have before us a great opportunity to get health care reform right. as a practicing physician, i have worked on the front lines of health care, caring for all, regardless of chief complaint, time of day or ability to pay. i have seen firsthand what works and what doesn't work in our health care system. that's why i have introduced two pieces of legislation aimed at repealing the onerous provisions that hurt individuals and businesses, repairing the elements of the law that have merit and replacing the broken piece of the law with reasonable reforms and strengthening medicare. i look forward to advancing these pieces of legislation in the wake of the court's decision.

we have the best health care system in the world and we should look for ways to include as many americans as possible in it. but we also have a due you to to uphold the constitution and pass laws that will achieve their stated goal. the affordable care act missed the mark in both respects. and i look forward to joining my colleagues in delivering health care solution that will benefit the american people. again i thank my colleague from tennessee for organizing this special order and i yield back the balance of my time. mrs. black: thank you, dr. heck, and dr. heck talked as we all know about the major costs that are involved in this obamacare and want to talk about broken promise number three. it will not add, and i quote, one dime to our deficit, closed quote. that was a laughable assertion then and now three years later it is clear that it could not be further from the truth. the law will add trillions to our deficit in the years to come. former congressional budget office -- officer director douglas holt ecoen estimates

that the law will increase the national debt by at least $500 billion in the first 10 years and over $1.5 trillion in the second decade. not to mention the $115 billion needed to implement the law. that is more than $2 trillion in new debt that will be passed on to our children and our grandchildren. and now i would like to yield five minutes to my good friend mike kelly who represents pennsylvania three and hails from erie, pennsylvania. i yield five minutes. mr. kelly: i thank my colleague from tennessee. i really appreciate the opportunity to talk tonight and i think that i find it unusual in my 18 months here is when i look at a lot of the legislation that comes forward, a lot of it is proposed to people who have never done what they're mandating people to do. for most of my life i was a small business person, still am. and when i get back home and i walk in the district and i talk to the people that are doing the same things that i've done all

my life, i'm talking about small business people, they keep talking about the same thing and the one thing that resonates with me all the time is the uncertainty of what this government does to them. the uncertainty of what this law in particular does to them. and when i talk about uncertainty in business i mean, you cannot begin to project what your future costs are going to be on legislation that the rules and regs still haven't been put in place. so we ask people to take this blind faith leap to go ahead and go along with it. the truth of the matter is you can't. you can't when it's your own skin in the game. you can't when it's your business that's at risk. you can't hire people when you don't know ultimately what the cost of those people are going to be. now people say, why is that a big problem? because it drives the cost of whatever it is that you do. your personnel costs have an affect on whether the it's the service you provide or the goods you provide. the confusion that goes along with this bill is what puts job creators, small business people, inequality. they just don't know what to do because the law doesn't

specifically tell them what it's going to cost. now, again, because i've done it all my life and it's always been my skin in the game and my blood on the floor at the end of the day by making a bad decision, if it was about jobs, if it was about creating jobs, then this legislation surely didn't get the job done. between january of 2009 and april of 2010, private sector job creation improved by about 67,000 jobs a month. president obama signed the ppaca into law at the end of march, 2010. since may of 2010 private sector job growth has improved at a rate of only 4600 -- 4,600 jobs per month. once again, a law passed by this house and by the senate and signed by the president puts the people who really do create jobs in a quandary. and they look at us and they say, please do something about

this. please get the government's boot off our throat. i can't continue to plan for the future with a law that doesn't project the total cost. look, you know, we can talk about this on and on and on but the american people know better than anybody else the effect that this has had on them. the job creators know better than anybody else what effect this has had on them. people in business who were never at the table know better than anybody else and now have gotten to the point where i understand if you're not at the table you're on the menu. and i got to tell you, job creates are put on the menu. they are getting eaten alive by a piece of legislation that drives their cost of operation up, mandates them to do something under penalty of law or pay a fine that they don't want to do and the funny thing about it, a guy like me, i wasn't given the opportunity, i wasn't give an waiver. you know what? it may not work for you, so we're going to give you a waiver. but who did get waivers? there were some people who got waivers out there but who were they? and why did they get the

waivers? we wonder why the american people don't trust this government and this administration? why would you trust people that pick and choose winners and losers and say, you will follow the law, you get a waiver. really? why? because we can do it. that's not the america i know. that's not the america that my father fought for. that's just something that's inherently wrong with the way business is being done in this town. so we can talk about this and we can talk about all the good things and the bad things and the pieces we ought to keep and the pieces we ought to reject and we can talk about the fact that we don't know whats going to ultimately cost us. i'll tell you one thing. if you're starting a business now, people start businesses all over the world, at one time we were number four. the country the people wanted to start a business in. now we've fallen way down and we trail now macedonia, georgia, rwanda, belarus, saudi arabia and ar mania. it's more attract to have start

a business in those countryness that in the united states of america? and we wonder why? and we wonder why so many millions of americans are out of work? and we wonder why job creators, small business people won't hire people? and we tell them, you're going to follow the letter of the law or you're going to be fined? and we wonder why they leave our shores and go to other countries? if we're still wondering, we either are poorly informed or in denial. we have made it too hard for job creators to stay here. we have made it too hard for business people to make a decision to hire people. we have made it too expensive for them and leave them no alternative but to stay on the sidelines. so when the president asks, why are these people on the sidelines, what are they investing? i'll say, please find the nearest mirror. look in there. is this administration -- it's this administration and these

laws that have put a choke-hold on the economy. so i thank the gentlelady from tennessee for bringing up this, it's very timely. and too many americans are waiting too long now for answers from the government that just doesn't have the right answers. but tells them the way it's going to be without ever bringing them to the table to ask them, what's the effect of this on you, mr. businessman? how badly does this hurt you? because at the end of the day it's not about how bad it hurts the business people. there's very little consideration given to us. so i thank you for taking the time to bring this up and for us to talk about it. we need to continue talking about it and we need to fix something that is very badly broken. thank you. mrs. black: i thank my friend from pennsylvania who is a job creator and talking about how this bill is affecting our job creators and our economy and that leads right into my broken promise number four. it was said that it will not raise any of your taxes. the president's health care law broke this promise with 20 different tax hikes. placing a tremendous burden on the american family and the small businesses, the engine of

job growth. . americans are facing a barrage of washington-created head winds from the regulations and impending fissscal cliff on january 1. on top of that, job creators must work against the velocity of the $5 million obamacare tax increase coming at them over the next decade. this year, the obamacare tax burden comes in around $15 billion as you can see on the chart which represents around $190 for each family of four. we see it increase by 20-fold, by the year of 2040, where the tax burden will be $320 billion and the amount for a family of four will be $3,290. with the cost of -- the cost of living with gas and food and all of these other crushing burdens on our people, they just cannot afford another

increase in taxes. every dollar businesses are holding back in anticipation of this tax hike or new regulation is a dollar not spent on hiring americans that are out of work. with that, i would like to recognize and yield five minutes of my time to rob goodall, my good colleague from georgia, from lawrenceville. mr. goodall: -- mr. woodall: thank you. for folks who haven't been following your short 15 months here they don't usually put freshmen on the ways and means committee. this is not a merit ockcy, this is often run by tenures, a little like labor unions, you put in your time, play by the rules you eventually get promoted. but when you look at the freshman class that came in, they looked at folks like you, mrs. black, who have invested a career in health care, not

talking about health care, but implementing health care, and said, where can we make folks the most valuable. i hear ta time and time again back home, folks say, rob, why is it all the bureaucrats making the decisions in washington, d.c. i say to them that might have been the way it was but today we have folks like dr. bucshon, dr. heck, diane black who are in places where they can brick their real-life experiences to bear. i listen to my colleague mike kelly talk about how folks just discount job creators as if passing legislation like this. you wonder why it is when the worst recession in my lifetime, we have folks who you could consult, we have folks you could speak with, we have folks whose advice you could seek and employee and yet washington knows best. i actually saw your tax chart from my office and i came down here, i thought that would be

something about improving outcomes, i thought it would be something about how more folks have jobs today than yesterday. but it's a chart of tax burdens. we knew that was going to tchosme promise was that we were going to provide more care to folks, do more things for folks and more importantly, health care premiums for the average american family were going to come down by $2,500 per "the addams family"ly. that was the promise the president gave us. i would ask my colleague, what are we seeing here? mrs. black: that's what you're seing here. it's the rhetoric versus the reality, and the promise was we'll bring down the premiums by $2,500 for the typical family. here's the line for the rhetoric and here's the reality.

it did not bring it down, they're going to continue to go up and it's estimated by the time we reach 2016, actually a little over -- i guess 2015, the premiums will actually have increased by almost $2,400. broken promise. mr. woodall: my concern is, when folks see that chart back home, they're not aghast. that's what they expected. they expected good rhetoric out of washington, d.c. and they expected abysmal results. candidly, i don't know why they wouldn't. doesn't matter whether it's a republican administration or democratic administration, washington, d.c. is famous in its one-size-fits-all solutions for over-promising and underdelivering. but you always have hope you always have hope that this time it's going to be different. i remember, talking about hope and change, i remember when the president was rolling out this provision, i thought, golly if we would just pass this bill 10 pages at the time, there wow would probably be some merit toirs parts of it. there would be provisions the american people would want. i might not want them and leave

me alone in the world i live in, but other folks would want them, pass by 218 votes if we would look at it one small parts at a time. but there were ugly things, ugly things i hope the supreme court solves. things that folks wanted to hide in all of these other provisions in the health care bill. one of the things i pride myself on in this congress, what we've seen out of the ways and means committee, we haven't seen any 2,000-page bills in the 15 months you and i have been in congress. we haven't seen any 1,500 page bill, my freshman colleague from -- since my freshman colleague from alabama has been in congress. we've seen limited bills with limited ideas that the american people candy jest and understand. i know we can deliver that. with the help of colleagues like the gentlelady from tennessee, with the doctors caucus here in the house, the largest doctors caucus we have

ever had in this house, i know we can implement solutions that make sense. 10 pages at a time in consultation with the american people, not an end run around the american people. i keep staring at this chart behind you, promises that insurance costs would go down and the reality that a command and control government structure has driven those costs up. i was here when this bill was being passed, i remember the phone calls coming in. i was like, what's the rush. i want the government involved in health care but what's the rush. i'm concerned that there's something hidden in there that you folks in congress want to push it all through before we've had a chance to see what's in it. chart after chart that you've brought down here tonight brings back those memories. there were things hidden in

there. we now have a chance to do et it better and with your leadership on the ways and means committee, i think we will. mrs. black: i thank my colleague from georgia they are kind commements. we see the broken promises over aened over and other again. and not only the costs to our job creators, which certainly is affecting our economy, but also those to the families, the typical families who are already struggling, already struggling to get health care and now we have increased that cost to them by almost $2,400 in just a few short ear years. now it is my honor to yield to a gentlelady from alabama, martha roby, who represents montgomery. mrs. roby: i thank the gentlelady from tennessee for your leadership tonight on this most important and timely subject and to the gentleman from georgia, i appreciate all

of your remarks because i do believe that we have shown through our campaign promises that we were going to put forth legislation that's not just common sensical but that all americans have the ability to digest and understand in a way that allows them to provide feedback and makes sense of what they're for and what they're not for this three-day rule we implemented provided us with an opportunity to give our constituents time to learn. it's not the same situation as they were with the previous congress in this massive health care law. i'm proud to say that one of our first votes in congress was to repeal this law in its entirety and most of us can agree that this law has very little to do with the

commonsense health care reform but translate into substantial costs over $500 billion -- well over $500 billion that has to be paid by hardworking, tax-paying americans. and you know, i would think that if this room was filled with colleagues from both this side of the aisle and the other that what we could all nod and agree upon is that we need health care in this country that is more accessible and more affordable. we just have different ways of feting there. and over the course of this congress, all of my colleagues here, we've cast over 27 votes to repeal or defund this current law. soon, and we know maybe sooner

than later, the supreme court is going to hand down this landmark decision regarding the constitutionality of this very law that we're discussing here tonight. like all of your districts, it will affect my home district in alabama. regardless of the supreme court's decision, i believe that many of the problems that we have with health care in this country will continue to be present and they have a significant impact on small business in this country and despite rhetoric, we have a responsibility in this majority to maintain our focus on jobs and the economy because that is what americans are concerned about and today i asked, in anticipation of being here with you tonight, my constituents from the second district of alabama, to share with me on facebook their concerns sur rain shower -- surrounding obamacare. i want to quote a few constituents. obamacare violates the constitution and the rights of the american people. obamacare is not the answer. a board of laymen should not decide what treatment i can get. this is between me and my doctor, not some committee with -- without any medical

experience. one of their largest fears is ipab, the independent payment advisory board, labeled by critics as the death pam. they will be empowered to find cost savings in medicare by rationing health care services to senior citizens. like the president's czars this board will be hand picked by the president and will not be accountable to the american people or any person that they elected to the congress to represent them. one montgomery, alabama, physician claims that the cut tots -- cuts in payments to doctors will be devastating to his ability to stay in business. we've heard testimonies about how difficult it will be to then rere-crute family practitioners and internal medicine doctors into the community. ipab's recommendations to reduce health care costs will unfairly and disproportionately

fall on physicians just like him since the law prohibits any reductions in payments to hospitals and hossties -- hospices until 2020. so many doctors in alabama are faced with the painful decision of staying in business or not seeing medicare patients. all because of obamacare. not because of the decisions that this republican majority in this house has made. not only will ipab has a -- have a devastating of effect on businesses, it will have a disastrous effect on a patient's access to care. another concern of my constituents is the employer-mandated health insurance provision. the obama administration is encouraging employers to retain and expand health care coverage to their employees by 014. my question is this. how can a business own retain insurance coverage if it forces him into bankruptcy. this is what all of us here, -- hear, when we travel throughout

our district, this is the number one concern of uncertainty provided by this law. i recently heard from a state, another constituent who owns grocery stores throughout alabama, employing over 500 workers. this means 500 families are making a living from this business and when he's required by law to provide all his employees with health insurance, his grocery stores will go bankrupt, causing significant layoffs to his employees. when a kumquat producer from a southern state is threatened to go out of business, this is evidence we have left no stone urn tern -- unturned when it comes to the loss of jobs. on a national perspective the employer-mandated health insurance provision could cause the elimination of 1.6 million jobs with 66% of those coming from small businesses alone. who wins in